Rand Paul Targets Hillary Clinton in Hawk Criticism

Sen. Rand Paul (R., Ky.),stepping up his criticism of U.S. policy in response to the rise of Islamic militants, Thursday criticized Hillary Clinton for suggesting that a more aggressive U.S. policy supporting rebels in Syria might have impeded the militants’ rise.

“To interventionists like former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, we would caution that arming the Islamic rebels in Syria created a haven for the Islamic State,’’ said Mr. Paul in an op-ed article in The Wall Street Journal, referring to the militant group sweeping through Syria and northern Iraq that is also known as ISIS. “We are lucky Mrs. Clinton didn’t get her way and the Obama administration did not bring about regime change in Syria. That new regime might well be ISIS.”

Mr. Paul, who like Mrs. Clinton is likely to run for president in 2016, also criticizes military hawks who dominate his own party.

Mrs. Clinton’s more-interventionist views have also under fire from liberal Democrats. The emerging debate points to the prospect that 2016 presidential nomination will open foreign policy divisions within both parties.

Mr. Paul alluded to that prospect in a Sunday interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press when he called Mrs. Clinton a “war hawk.”

“I think that’s what scares the Democrats the most, is that in a general election, were I to run, there’s going to be a lot of independents and even some Democrats who say, ‘You know what? We are tired of war,’” Mr. Paul said.

Mr. Paul maintained a low profile on the situation in Iraq in the aftermath of President Barack Obama’ recent decision to launch air strikes in northern Iraq to protect U.S. interests and to aid a religious minority under siege by ISIS forces. Mr. Paul’s first comments were noncommital, saying that he believed Congress should have to vote for or against airstrikes but that ”I have an open mind as to exactly what we do.

But in his interview Sunday and his article Thursday, Mr. Paul offered a more full-throated denunciation of U.S. interventionism in the Middle East.

“Shooting first and asking questions later has never been a good foreign policy,” Mr. Paul said. “The past year has been a perfect example.”

He criticized the Obama administration for considering aid to rebels and air strikes against Syria last year in order to undercut Syrian President Bashar Assad, warning that regime change in Syria could have bolstered rebels allied with ISIS.

“The interventionists are calling for Islamic rebels to win in Syria and for the same Islamic rebels to lose in Iraq, Mr. Paul said. “Our Middle Eastern policy is unhinged, flailing about to see who to act against next, with little thought to the consequences. This is not a foreign policy.”

Mr. Paul’s anti-interventionist foreign policy views are seen as a potential stumbling block in his effort to win the nomination of a party long dominated by military hawks.

In his article, Mr. Paul took a swipe at “hawkish members of my own party.”

“Some said it would be “catastrophic” if we failed to strike Syria. What they were advocating for then—striking down Assad’s regime—would have made our current situation even worse, as it would have eliminated the only regional counterweight to the ISIS threat.”

About Washington Wire

Washington Wire is one of the oldest standing features in American journalism. Since the Wire launched on Sept. 20, 1940, the Journal has offered readers an informal look at the capital. Now online, the Wire provides a succession of glimpses at what’s happening behind hot stories and warnings of what to watch for in the days ahead. The Wire is led by Reid J. Epstein, with contributions from the rest of the bureau. Washington Wire now also includes Think Tank, our home for outside analysis from policy and political thinkers.